you can't find aesthetic visual guidelines from inventive stylizaTions, we find all of our guidelines or 'rules' (as to what makes things appealing) from reality. If this thread is binary like the 'stylized vs realism' title states. I would rather defend that which is there (realism) than that which comes from there and evolves from it (stylized). The more we respect our reference the better we are as artists.

But how would you know if it will succeed? Surely you're not stupid enough to sit there and hope people won't notice your lack of skill, and just appreciate your "way of doing things".
Maybe people will appreciate it, maybe this is just a hobby, or maybe we're being too harsh.
But to get that professional position, your work is gonna be reviewed by a professional. And I tell you, if the people on this board could clearly see your lack of visual knowledge, your employer is going to see it. What if they don't want your style, but would rather you follow their "Lead Artist"?

So how do you judge or make corrections to something that is neither right nor wrong?
Learn from reality, because there is only 1 version of it.

When you reach the end, you'd have your own style, as well as the ability to mimic others.

hahaha, depends on who you'd want to agree with yourself, you, or the public.

This discussion is odd to me, I find that they both serve their purposes and they are used for different purposes/contexts. Sure you can intermingle when it's a message to be told, but then the context would change too I think. So it depends on your purpose.

Basically, stylised is easier because it requires less intricate detailing/shading/attention to whatever. Realism is the most powerful tool, but the most difficult because it demands an extreme amount of finesse if you do it as an original and not merely a copy of a photo or life figure.

Ultimately, it requires a lot more time to get something realist(ic) done well than stylised.

I think ou should know the rules before you bend them but it's not necessary I think, there are oads of manga training books around, I bet a lot of those people wouldn't ber very good realists. But they do fine in manga, because it's easier.

Quote:Basically, stylised is easier because it requires less intricate detailing/shading/attention to whatever. Realism is the most powerful tool, but the most difficult because it demands an extreme amount of finesse if you do it as an original and not merely a copy of a photo or life figure.

Ultimately, it requires a lot more time to get something realist(ic) done well than stylised.

So Jim, you've never seen a stylised image that has detail?

Generally a unique and recognisable style takes years to develop, unlike realism, where the development time is more in understanding the vagaries of anatomy etc. and an ability to robotically copy with little imagination.
Both obviously need a solid understanding of structure, color balance, perspective etc.

Quote:
Realism is the most powerful tool

Well, I guess that explains the enormous success of company logos which are purposefully pared-down to minimalist forms

Originally Posted by Atwooki:
Generally a unique and recognisable style takes years to develop, unlike realism, where the development time is more in understanding the vagaries of anatomy etc. and an ability to robotically copy with little imagination.

I was going to say something like this too...only a little more nicely...lol...

Just becuase you work in a stylized fashion, doesn't necessarily mean you don't have a clue, nor does it mean you don't have a grasp....

and truly in my opinion, at least in a traditional artistic sense, it's much easier to be realistic, than to develop a style that shows imagination, as well as true thought...it's easy to copy shadows and light.

...I haven't learned enough about digital at this point to know the difference...

Originally Posted by Atwooki:So Jim, you've never seen a stylised image that has detail?

Generally a unique and recognisable style takes years to develop, unlike realism, where the development time is more in understanding the vagaries of anatomy etc. and an ability to robotically copy with little imagination.
Both obviously need a solid understanding of structure, color balance, perspective etc.
Well, I guess that explains the enormous success of company logos which are purposefully pared-down to minimalist forms

The name's Jan Mark, and factually the stylised images are nearly always less detailed and always flattened. Basically they allow for the freedom to use simpler compositions and colourschemes as opposed to realism. I can see your own taste goes towards unrealistic depictions from the first sentence you posted here. So I'm taking the rest with a grain of salt .
I can't think of any logo's that stuck with me though. I think it's for usability in print and production.

edit: let's face it. To be imaginative in a realist style is not at all easy but possible. I think that's why it's never done, look at some of the favorite's of a lot of people, they do realism, but, they use their own imagination for just about everything. Those symbolisms seem to me far more suffisticated than the ones in heavily stylised paintings.

Personally I believe that the need for stylizing forced or accidental, with or without anatomically correct parts clearly depands greatly on the FEEL of the image you are trying to convey.

When you look at it does it feel right to you?

All of this comes out of the painter/sculptor/etc...'s own experiences be it in school, from books or in life. So if you want or don't want to have big anime eyes in your drawing clearly depends on who you are as a person and as a painter.

Like the old saying goes: "be yourself..." everything will fall into place after that.

Note: This may or may not apply to commercial illustration or commisssioned work with very very specific marks that need to be hit. In cases like this, sometimes it isnt about being yourself, sometimes it's about getting paid. Being artistic is great and all but you still got to eat.

I gotta say I'm in the same spot as you angryscientist, I lack such knowledge myself. But I'm learning at the anatomy forum, you should go check if you haven't, there's a bundle of treats there.

Agree with angryscientist on the painting too. Beside proportions, The lighting is fairly off too, colourwise and in it's consistency. Especially regarding the brightness of the outside. You're making a bold statement claiming that you've outgrown it.

edit: the faces in yours are for instance wider and still look like children compared to the photographs. And I'm telling you, with a photograph right under it you can clearly see the shadin is off, as well as the colour.

First off, I make no great claims for this painting; a masterpiece it's not!
Second, regardless of the quality of the artwork, it is considered to be
within the 'realism' genre (it was after all exhibited in the 'Not The Turner Prize'
exhibition here in London last year , which is a specifically a 'realism' exhibition)
I would also suggest that Jan Mark's lovely drawings fall into this category.

What it obviously not, is a 'photorealistic' painting, but that's not within the
subject of this thread's title....

Very true
Perhaps I should clarify that a little by saying that my creative interests
lean more towards caricature nowadays, as I find the process more stimulating;
certainly the issues of perception intrigue me and hold my interest more.

Follow Us On:

The CGSociety

The CGSociety is the most respected and accessible global organization for creative digital artists. The CGS supports artists at every level by offering a range of services to connect, inform, educate and promote digital artists worldwide. More about us on TheArtSociety.com